DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/4/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 24-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. US 20220117032 (hereinafter Han) in view of Liu et al. US 20180074520 A1 (hereinafter Liu) and Guerrini et al. US 2019080621 A1 (hereinafter Guerrini).
Regarding claims 1, 24, and 33; Han teaches a first vehicle user equipment (UE) for wireless communication (paragraph 0002 discloses UE for wireless communication; paragraph 0032 discloses each UE may be a vehicle having a transceiver), comprising:
at least one memory (paragraph 0093 "non-transitory computer-readable medium"); and
at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and operable to cause the first vehicle UE to perform a method (paragraph 0093 discloses a processor which is used by the memory to perform a method; a coupling to the memory is required for the memory to utilize the processor to perform the method), the method comprising:
transmitting, to a base station (BS), one or more incident reports (paragraph 0058 discloses transmitting a report of radio link failure to a base station);
receiving, from the BS, a recovery command that indicates a recovery operation (paragraph 0058 discloses receiving, from a base station, a release of sidelink configuration in response to the radio link failure report); and
performing, responsive to the recovery command, the recovery operation (paragraph 0058 discloses, upon receiving the transmission from a base station, performing a release of sidelink connection and establishing a new sidelink connection).
Han does not teach that the first vehicle is an unmanned aerial UAV; receiving a recovery command based at least in part on a condition associated with the position of the first UAV UE relative to the at least one second UAV UE being met; and performing, responsive to the recovery command, a recovery operation to update the position of the first UAV UE by moving the first UAV UE to an expected position relative to the at least one second UAV UE.
Liu teaches that the first vehicle is an unmanned aerial UAV (Figure 1 shows com modules 38 onboard UAVs 21; also see paragraph 0035);
receiving a recovery command that indicates a recovery operation based at least in part on a condition associated with the position of the first UAV UE relative to the at least one second UAV UE being met (paragraph 0021 discloses receiving formation commands including positional information and processing the commands to generate corrective operations for a UAV position based on desired location indicated in the positional information and current relative position being lower than a threshold; see also paragraph 0025 wherein the formation commands are detailed as including the desired separation distances between UAVs); and
performing, responsive to the recovery command, a recovery operation to update the position of the first UAV UE by moving the first UAV UE to an expected position relative to the at least one second UAV UE (paragraph 0021 discloses that a follower drone implements propulsion control to correct for a determined relative distance error).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Han to incorporate the teachings of Liu such that, subsequent to transmitting the report of Han, required positioning of UAVs can be received, a distance deviation can be calculated, and controls to correct this deviation can be implemented according to the teachings of Liu wherein the received command data can originate from a base station as taught by Han. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to avoid collisions between drones flying too closely.
Han does not teach transmitting one or more incident reports corresponding to a position of the first UAV UE relative to at least one second UAV UE.
Guerrini teaches transmitting one or more incident reports corresponding to a position of the first UAV UE relative to at least one second UAV UE (paragraph 0096 discloses sending relative position of sending drone to a close drone).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Han to incorporate the teachings of Guerrini such that the incident report transmitted to a base station as taught by Han can include not only the radio link failure disclosed in Han, but also can include relative position information as taught by Guerrini. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to avoid collisions between drones by ensuring safety maneuvers can be performed to correct the incident and improve accuracy of incident reporting.
Regarding claims 2 and 25, the modified Han reference teaches all of claims 1 and 24 as detailed above. Han further teaches each incident report comprises sidelink power received by the first UAV UE from the second UAV UE (paragraph 0008 discloses that the report is of a radio link failure between a first and second UE).
Han does not teach that each incident report may further comprise at least one of:
a location of the first UAV UE;
a first identifier (ID) associated with the first UAV UE;
a distance between the first UAV UE and the at least one second UAV UE;
at least one second ID associated with the at least one second UAV UE;
at least one cell ID associated with the at least one second UAV UE.
Guerrini further teaches that that each incident report may further comprise at least one of:
a location of the first UAV UE (paragraph 0094 discloses sending instantaneous position of the sending drone);
a first identifier (ID) associated with the first UAV UE (paragraph 0093 discloses sending ID of the sending drone);
a distance between the first UAV UE and the at least one second UAV UE (paragraph 0096 discloses sending relative position of sending drone to a close drone); and
at least one second ID associated with the at least one second UAV UE (paragraph 0095 discloses sending IDs of neighboring drones).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Han to incorporate the teachings of Guerrini with a reasonable expectation of success to improve ease of identification of drones within a swarm.
Regarding claims 3 and 26, the modified Han reference teaches all of claims 2 and 25 as detailed above.
Han does not teach that the at least one second UAV UE comprises one or more of a neighboring UAV UE of the first UAV UE, a member UAV UE in a UAV swarm, or a master UAV UE in the UAV swarm.
Guerrini further teaches that the at least one second UAV UE comprises a neighboring UAV UE of the first UAV UE (paragraph 0092-0096 discloses a neighboring drone).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Han to incorporate the further teachings of Guerrini with a reasonable expectation of success to improve ease of identification of drones within a swarm by comparing with neighbors.
Regarding claims 4 and 27, the modified Han reference teaches all of claims 2 and 25 as detailed above. Han further teaches transmitting the one or more incident reports based at least in part on an incident detection condition being met (paragraph 0055 discloses transmitting a report only once radio link failure is detected), and wherein the incident detection condition comprises a sidelink radio link failure between the first UAV UE and the at least one second UAV UE (paragraph 0008 discloses that the report is transmitted when there is a radio link failure between a first and second UE).
Claim(s) 5-6 and 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han as modified by Liu and Guerrini as applied to claims 1 and 24 above, and further in view of Schmidt et al. US 20200252941 A1 (hereinafter Schmidt).
Regarding claims 5 and 28, the modified Han reference teaches all of claims 1 and 24 as detailed above.
Han does not teach receiving an incident detection configuration from one or more of a master UAV UE or the BS.
Schmidt teaches receiving an incident detection configuration from a BS (Figure 3 shows transmitting, from a base station to a UE, an altitude measurement and reporting configuration; paragraph 0056 discloses that this may include a threshold altitude at which reporting stops and drone has returned to a "usual" state; given context from paragraph 0051 of the applicant's spec where the configuration may include detection conditions, examiner interprets this as applicable).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Han to incorporate the teachings of Schmidt with a reasonable expectation of success to improve tracking of an abnormal drone by requesting frequent reports with qualifying conditions for potential signal failure or reduced signal quality.
Regarding claims 6 and 29, the modified Han reference teaches all of claims 1 and 24 as detailed above.
Han does not teach that the recovery command comprises a timer for triggering a location report, and wherein the at least one processor is operable to cause the first UAV UE to: start the timer based at least in part on receiving the recovery command and transmit, upon expiry of the timer, the location report.
Schmidt teaches that the recovery command comprises a timer for triggering a location report (paragraph 0056 discloses a periodic location report; examiner considers each period, especially the initial period after receiving the command, for transmitting the report equivalent to a timer), and wherein the at least one processor is operable to cause the first UAV UE to: start the timer based at least in part on receiving the recovery command and transmit, upon expiry of the timer, the location report (paragraph 0056 discloses reporting measurement periodically after receiving a command to initiate reporting; examiner considers each period, especially the initial period after receiving the command, for transmitting the report equivalent to a timer wherein the start of the first period is the start of the timer and the end of the first period is the expiration of the timer for the first period, resulting in the transmission of the first location report).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Han to incorporate the teachings of Schmidt such that along with the release and reestablishment of radio link as taught by Han, the recovery command would also require the UE to periodically transmit the location of the UE according to the teachings of Schmidt. This modification would be done with a reasonable expectation of success to improve tracking of an abnormal drone by requesting frequent reports of location to aid in the anticipation of further signal failure and/or to aid in guidance of the drone to a location with higher quality signal with less interference and/or to aid the base station in reducing interference within the location of the drone to improve signal quality.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han as modified by Liu and Guerrini as applied to claims 1 and 24 above, and further in view of Schmidt and "Radio Repeater" by Wikipedia (hereinafter Wiki).
Regarding claims 7 and 30, the modified Han reference teaches all of claims 1 and 24 as detailed above. Han further teaches receiving the one or more additional incident reports from the one or more UAV UEs in a UAV swarm (Figure 7 902 shows UE2 receiving an incident report from UE1; examiner understands that the labels UE1 and UE2 are exemplary and can be replaced with any UE number indicating that any number of additional reports can be reported between UAVs in the system; see paragraph 0032 where it is detailed that terminology used is meant to be exemplary);
receiving a recovery indication indicating an abnormal UAV UE in the UAV swarm from the BS (paragraph 0058 discloses receiving, from a base station, a release of sidelink configuration; considering context from claim 8 and paragraph 0021 of the applicant's disclosure, examiner interprets the received recovery indication and transmitted recovery command to be one and the same instruction, just in different contexts from reception and transmission); and
performing the recovery command on the abnormal UAV UE (paragraph 0077 discloses that UE1 can also perform the release and reestablishing of a radio link connection).
Han does not explicitly teach transmitting an additional recovery command to the abnormal UAV UE based at least in part on the recovery indication.
Wiki teaches retransmitting received signals (page 1 paragraph 1 discloses receiving and retransmitting signals).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Han to incorporate the teachings of Wiki such that the release sidelink configuration received from a base station as taught in Han can be forwarded from UE2 to UE1 using the teachings of Wiki such that UE1 can perform the recovery command according to the teachings of Han. This modification would be done with a reasonable expectation of success to allow radio signals to cover longer distances such that out of range of communicators can still communicate with each other as disclosed in Wiki (page 1 paragraph 1).
The modified Han reference does not teach receiving an incident detection configuration associated with one or more UAV UEs in a UAV swarm from a base station (BS).
Schmidt further teaches receiving an incident detection configuration associated with one or more UAV UEs in a UAV swarm from a base station (BS) (Figure 3 shows transmitting, from a base station to a UE, an altitude measurement and reporting configuration; paragraph 0056 discloses that this may include a threshold altitude at which reporting stops and drone has returned to a "usual" state; given context from paragraph 0051 of the applicant's spec where the configuration may include detection conditions, examiner interprets this as applicable).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Han to incorporate the further teachings of Schmidt with a reasonable expectation of success to improve tracking of abnormal drone by requesting frequent reports with qualifying conditions for potential signal failure or reduced signal quality.
Regarding claims 8 and 31, the modified Han reference teaches all of claims 7 and 30 as detailed above.
Han does not teach that the recovery command comprises at least one of: a direction information associated with the abnormal UAV UE; a velocity information associated with the abnormal UAV UE; an additional expected position associated with the abnormal UAV UE; or a timing for triggering the abnormal UAV UE to transmit a location report.
Schmidt further teaches the recovery command comprises a timing for trigger for the abnormal UAV UE to transmit a location report (paragraph 0056 discloses receiving a request to report altitude measurements periodically).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Han to incorporate the teachings of Schmidt such that along with the release and reestablishment of radio link as taught by Han, the recovery command would also require the UE to periodically transmit the location of the UE according to the teachings of Schmidt. This modification would be done with a reasonable expectation of success to improve tracking of an abnormal drone by requesting frequent reports of location to aid in the anticipation of further signal failure and/or to aid in guidance of the drone to a location with higher quality signal with less interference and/or to aid the base station in reducing interference within the location of the drone to improve signal quality.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han as modified by Liu and Guerrini, Schmidt, and Wiki as applied to claims 8 and 31 above, and further in view of Wang.
Regarding claims 9, the modified Han reference teaches all of claims 8 and 31 as detailed above. Han teaches communicating with a BS (Figure 1 shows communication with a base station).
Han does not teach receiving the location report from the abnormal UAV UE in response to the additional recovery command.
Schmidt further teaches receiving the location report from the abnormal UAV UE in response to the additional recovery command (paragraph 0056 discloses transmitting altitude measurements periodically in response to a request to do so; transmission requires a reception at another device).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Han to incorporate the further teachings of Schmidt with a reasonable expectation of success to improve tracking of the abnormal drone as detailed above.
The modified Han reference does not teach transmitting the location report to the BS.
Wiki teaches retransmitting received signals (page 1 paragraph 1 discloses receiving and retransmitting signals).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Han to incorporate the teachings of Wiki such that the received location report taught by Schmidt can be forwarded according to the teachings of Wiki to the BS taught by Han. This modification would be done with a reasonable expectation of success to allow radio signals to cover longer distances such that out of range communicators can still communicate with each other as disclosed in Wiki (page 1 paragraph 1).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han as modified by Liu and Guerrini, Schmidt, and Wiki as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Wajnberg et al. US 11513233 B2 (hereinafter Wajnberg).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Han reference teaches all of claim 8 as detailed above. Han teaches communicating with a BS (Figure 1 shows communication with a base station).
Han does not teach determining whether recovery of the abnormal UAV UE is successful based at least in part on at least one of a measured sidelink power received by the first UAV UE from the abnormal UE or the one or more additional incident reports.
Wajnberg teaches determining whether recovery of the abnormal UAV UE is successful (column 5 lines 24-27 disclose determining if an escorted drone has reached its final destination) based on the received one or more additional incident reports (column 1 lines 30-34 discloses determining if drone is at the desired destination by comparing the desire destination to a present location).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Han to incorporate the teachings of Wajnberg such that the reported location of the drone as taught by Schmidt can be compared with a desired location to determine if a drone has been fully recovered as taught by Wajnberg. This modification can be done with a reasonable expectation of success to improve accuracy of recovery determination by utilizing received location pings such that the vehicle can be known to be in a good signal coverage area.
The modified Han reference does not teach transmitting a recovery result to the BS.
Wiki teaches retransmitting received signals (page 1 paragraph 1 discloses receiving and retransmitting signals).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Han to incorporate the teachings of Wiki such that the location information received indicating that the drone has reached a desired location as taught by Wajnberg can be forwarded according to the teachings of Wiki to the base station of Han. This modification would be done with a reasonable expectation of success to allow radio signals to cover longer distances such that out of range communicators can still communicate with each other as disclosed in Wiki (page 1 paragraph 1).
Claim(s) 34 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Guerrini, Liu, Schmidt, and Wiki.
Regarding claims 34 and 35, examiner understands these claims to be no more than mere incorporations of the limitations of claim 7 written in independent form and therefore the same grounds of rejection apply.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 10, applicant argues that Liu does not teach the amended limitation of receiving the recovery command from the BS. While examiner agrees Liu does not teach this limitation, since Han does teach receiving a recovery command from the BS in at least paragraph 0058, Liu can be utilized to modify the contents of the received command while the origin of the command according to Han (the BS) is maintained. Therefore, the amended limitation is still taught by the prior art of record.
On pages 10-11, applicant further argues that Liu does not teach the amended limitation that the recovery command indicates a recovery operation. Examiner respectfully argues that this is factually incorrect. Liu explicitly states that the received group formation command includes positional and velocity information in paragraph 0021. These commands are processed to result in an implementation of relative position control as further detailed in paragraph 0021. Paragraph 0025 provides explicit details regarding what the positional information contained within the group commands is:
“As further discussed below, the formation command 22 of the GCS 12 can include a geographical starting position for the group 16, a geographical ending position for the group 16, one or more altitude positions for the group 16 along a flight path, the flight path itself ( e.g. a series of intermediate geographical positions or WPs) for the group 16 between the starting and ending positions, separation distance(s) D between adjacent UAVs 18, as well as one or more speeds or velocities for the group 16.”
Based on the cited section, it is clear that the formation command is indicative of an intended operation to be performed by the group of drones as a whole. While the command requires processing to result in implementation by at least one UAV in the group as detailed in paragraph 0021, it is still clearly indicative of the intended final implementation. Therefore, Liu does, in fact, teach this limitation.
On page 11, applicant further argues that Guerrini does not teach transmission of one or more incident reports to a BS. While examiner agrees that Guerrini does not teach this limitation, since Han does teach transmission of one or more incident reports to a BS in at least paragraph 0058, Guerrini can be utilized to modify the contents of the transmitted report while the final report receiver of Han (the BS) is maintained. Therefore, the amended limitation is still taught by the prior art of record.
Since the prior art of record still teaches the amended limitations, the 103 rejection is maintained although modified in accordance with the amended limitations.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hong et al. US 12230145 B2 details transmitted information to a base station when an effect occurs and receiving positioning information from the base station.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 5:00 am - 3:30 pm PT Monday - Thursday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669